Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2023 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 1389 - DELHI HIGH COURTLevy of penalty on appellant for the negligence of its counsel - respondent/plaintiff despite being aware of the reference under the SICA did not apprise the Court of such proceedings - jurisdiction of impugned order - Suit for recovery - sick company - HELD THAT:- Evidently, an appearance had been put on behalf of the appellant/defendant on the service of summons by publication, however not only was the written statement not filed but the Court was also not apprised about the registration of the reference or pendency of the proceedings before BIFR. Thus, there was no due diligence on the part of the appellant/defendant in contesting the proceedings. It is well settled that there was legal duty cast upon the appellant/defendant to bring it to the notice of the Court that it had qualified for the protection under the SICA, and this obligation was not discharged. Learned Single Judge rightly found that appellant/defendant merely took a lame excuse, most conveniently blaming its previous counsel but then it is also borne out from the record that the respondent/plaintiff on becoming aware of the reference before the BIFR, filed an application before the BIFR on 23 July 2012, seeking its permission to execute the decree. Although the appellant/defendant was provided with an opportunity to file a reply to the said application, it was not filed so much so that the respondent/plaintiff was impleaded in the said proceedings before the BIFR on 12 December 2012 and admittedly the appellant/defendant came out of purview of SICA on 18 September 2014. And yet no legal proceedings were initiated by the appellant/defendant up until 2019. The learned Single Judge has committed no illegality, perversity or adopted an incorrect approach in passing the impugned order dated 27 May 2009. Appeal dismissed.
|